My Visit from Jehovah's Witnesses

Yesterday I got my wish to have a discussion with two Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door. There was a man and a woman. Only the man chose to argue with me. I warned them that I was a devout atheist, but this only served to spawn the discussion with a comment on my use of the word devout. I explained that Christians often say that atheism is just another kind of religion, complete with its own dogmatism and closed-mindedness. I freely admit that I am just as passionate about my position as most theists are about theirs, so I have adopted the term to indicate that. But I do try not be be dogmatic or closed-minded.

So this guy basically expounded the JW philosophy, without really trying to convert me. Theirs may be a brighter, more peaceful version of Christianity. They seem to be Bible literalists, but want to separate themselves from other denominations which have distorted, modified, and misinterpreted the Bible to the ends of power, greed, and war. But of course they have their own interpretation, which seems to me to be no less distorted, even though it seems to allow for a somewhat more modern liberal morality, as well as for modern science, including evolution. They do the latter by saying that we are still in the middle of the seventh "day" of creation, and God is resting.

I tried to get him to say what made him think that the Bible was literally true, but he wouldn't. I enumerated all of the usual sources of faith, with the counter-arguments for each. He seemed to politely agree with all of my arguments, but only kept trying to read from the Bible that he had with him, claiming that each passage was marvelously accurate. I tried to point out in each case how he was twisting the interpretation, and that there was no real scientific accuracy. I even pointed out the circularity in Bible belief, that if you start out convinced, then you can find interpretations that justify your conviction.

One of the passages that he read to show how the Bible was scientifically accurate was this: the water comes down from heaven as rain and snow, and it waits to nourish the plants before it goes back up to heaven. The idea was supposed to be that the Bible is teaching about the water cycle, which was not well understood at the time. I think it is safe to say that this is not only inaccurate (the water doesn't really wait to evaporate), but it is a stretch to think that such a statement could not have been written by ordinary people over 2000 years ago.

In addition to other reinterpretations, the JW seem to have a different view of heaven, hell, and revelations. They seem to think there is a heaven, but that it is reserved for a very select few, which does not even include themselves. Apparently there either is no hell, or it is not such a bad place. We didn't discuss this. They do, however, believe there is some sort of rapture-like event coming soon. The difference is that the earth, rather then becoming hell, will become a paradise, and be unified and ruled by heaven and the few people who are taken there to be angels.

So, despite being non-confrontational and mildly interesting, the discussion was somewhat disappointing. I really want to understand the source of people's faith, because I think that this is the key to any hope of breaking it down. And this guy succeeded in keeping this well hidden.

The Sam Harris Debates

Recently I have watched some of the debates between Sam Harris and various well-known theists. I have been disappointed in his seeming inability to directly address the main claim of the theists, which I would describe this way: we all have a soul, which is the seat of consciousness, and which also serves as a portal to the supernatural, and thenceforth to god. I have an idea about why he does not address this claim. To properly refute it, you must really take a position on the other side of the mind-body problem, and Mr. Harris is personally unable to do that. To say that we have a soul of this kind is to say that mind and body are dual -- i.e. two separate entities that are connected in some mysterious way. A mind-body duality not only gets you contact with god, but also, potentially, life after death, where only the soul persists. Mr. Harris is known to be ambivalent about life after death, and, of course his meditative experience is suggestive of some possible contact with something transcending the body as we normally understand it. I do not know if he has a precise philosophical position on the mind-body problem itself.

So the debates go something like this: Sam says that some bit from scripture is problematical and the respondent says that cherry picking scripture is fine because the proper interpretation always comes from social context. In my mind the proper response to this claim is as follows. If you read scripture as literature then you are of course free to cherry pick whatever you like. But if you use it as a basis for morality then you must have some separate moral basis for the cherry picking. It seems to me that the only possible separate basis is that god gives modern people additional morality via their souls. If you can't make an argument against the soul then you are stuck accepting the possibility that theists really are talking to god, and that if your own soul fails to make the connection then perhaps there is something defective about it. You can argue that different people seem to hear different moral instructions, but this is simply countered by saying that god tailors his morality to fit the social context of the people he is talking to. No one gets a perfect morality but instead they get one that they can use and that incrementally improves on whatever was already in place.

The simple counter argument to all this is just to say that mind, including consciousness, are simply emergent properties of our immensely complex physical brains. There is no duality necessary to understand any of it, although we obviously understand very little today about how it actually works. In this context we have to understand the very real, and extremely convincing, sense that people have of a personal contact with god. We can hardly have a detailed explanation for this without first having a detailed explanation for, e.g., consciousness, but there is plenty of evidence to the effect that "trance" states can be induced in most people using a variety of techniques, and that people generally have surreal experiences in these trance states. There is no evidence that I am aware of, however, that any knowledge is gained during these trance states which could not be known independently of them. The fact that these states often seem very convincingly real is just an observation about the (still unknown) workings of the brain. This is easy for me to say, because I have never experienced such a state. People who do research on it, and who experience it personally, often find it so compelling that they prefer to believe that they are contacting another part of objective reality than that the experience is confined to their own brains. Remarkable.

Is a Religious Discussion Even Possible?

I seem to recall that when I was in college religious and philosophical discussions were fairly common, especially after a few beers. But it has been a long time since I have had such a live discussion. Here are some thoughts on why it is difficult.

First of all, it seems like nowadays the subject matter of social talk is extremely limited. In fact I can summarize what is allowed in a single phrase: personal activities. You are allowed to describe things you have done, or things that people you know have done. But even this is limited to brief descriptions of each item, before it is required to change people, or at least change subjects. So basically it amounts to reportage, with no extended discussion, and certainly no argument or opposition. So no science, no philosophy, and, above all, no religion. I am allowed to mention that I am writing a book, and to say the title and give a sentence or two about the subject matter, but then the discussion must change.

Now I can imagine a situation in which some people might wish to have a religions discussion with me. But who would this be? It would be evangelical Christians who want to convert me. Now I wouldn't really mind having a discussion with them, but I think it is pretty unlikely that I would end up converting them instead. Perhaps in another post I'll discuss what I think it is that strengthens and preserves the faith of an extemist.

So is there any chance to have a religious discussion with a moderate? It seems like you need some excuse to bring up the subject. Even in a one-on-one context in which the social rules do not preclude such a discussion, most religious moderates are not really interested in a religious discussion. They would have to be drawn in somehow. But I have an idea. If I say that I have just finished writing a book, and the subject is god and space aliens, then that might actually sound interesting enough to discuss further. I have found that it doesn't work in groups, but I can imagine it working in a small group. Now of course I would have to find someone who isn't already an atheist, and who I'm not afraid of offending. This may be the null set.

So you can see why writing a book on this subject is a lot easier than actually getting to have a live discussion. I have, however written the book as though I were having such a discussion. The downside is that I have to provide both sides of the argument myself, and most likely I am not being fair to the other side.

Perhaps next time the jehovah's witnesses come to my door I should invite them in.

What About the Other Recent Atheist Books

Three "atheist" books have recently attracted a lot of attention. These are by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. While all of these will appeal to atheists, none, I think, will much appeal to people of faith. The Hitchens book is filled with legitimate outrage, often humorous, but almost always cynical and negative. The fundamentalists of all religions already have answers to his facts, and the religious moderates will feel offended and compelled to try and fight back. No one is likely to contemplate their faith as a result of reading this book.

The Dawkins book I have not read, but from the reviews I have seen, it appears to be focused on disproving the existence of god, or at least on proving its improbability. This will never convert a theist, because the theist knows that god exists, and therefore knows that there must be flaws in all proofs to the contrary. This entire line of reasoning is as old as the hills, and, in my opinion is not one which is either necessary or useful.

The Dennett book is really of another sort altogether. It is not really an atheist book at all. It is actually an academic exploration of the roots and evolution of religion. It never comes right out and suggests that a person of faith might want to rethink this as a consequence of the insights in the book. So I don't think it really connects to anyone's personal belief system. Besides this, I think it is much too academic for most readers.

Do Sam Harris Books Convert Theists?

Sam Harris' books (The End of Faith, and Letter to a Christian Nation) are a pleasure to read, for an atheist (at least for me, anyway). The arguments are so clear and articulate, and he directs his attention to many of the really important issues. I am pretty sure that quite a few Christians have read his work or heard him speak, and yet very few of them were converted or otherwise persuaded by his discussion. I spend a lot of time pondering how this can be. I have a few ideas. Here is one of them. For most people their religion is intensely personal, and includes a core certainty that is not really subject to question. For them, religions arguments are simply side-stepped by a sense that their religion is not like that. The arguments are really about other people's religion.

Is there any solution to this problem? In many cases the core certainty is simply too strong, and comes with a community support system that helps prevent any serious doubts. It may be possible, however, to engage the derivative beliefs by engaging them one-on-one such that the discussion is personal, and, in so far as possible, non-confrontational. I have the idea that if someone takes the time to think about what their personal god is like and what (s)he actually does in the world, then people can be shown that there are mistakes in their specific view. If the belief system can be stripped away, then the core belief might become more fragile. If a person somehow agreed that god was irrelevant, but despite that, still existed, then is not such a person already an atheist in some sense?

Is the Lab Just Another Kind of Church

Another way of saying this is to say that science is just a kind of god, and scientists worship their god in the same way that religious people worship theirs. So therefore, why should anyone trade in their (say) Christian god for the science god. They might as well become Hindus or Buddhists.

Of course there are some elements of truth in this argument. Non religious people do tend to have a certain respect and reverence for science and rational thought. It is in the nature of humanity to love the things that are important in your life. This does not imply that all of these things are equal in all respects.

So there are a few important differences between the church and the lab. One is that there is an implicit sign hanging over the door to the lab that says "thinking required", whereas the one over the church says "thinking discouraged". This is because there is a real danger that too much thinking may lead a person to question their faith. Of course we know that there is also dogmatism in the lab, and some kinds of thinking are allowed in the church. It is acceptable to study the ancient texts and ponder how they are to be properly interpreted in the modern world. Perhaps this difference is not as strong as it seems.

So let's move on the the real and important difference. Science has predictive power, and the church has none, at least so far as we know. Science can not only predict the future, but the predictions actually come true, reliably. Now most religious people will grant that science has this advantage, but this takes nothing away from their faith. In fact, as I have discussed previously, there is an assertion that faith does not require evidence. The faithful are actually proud of this. If religion had predictive power then that would certainly constitute evidence for god, and in the process it would spoil the purity of blind faith.

What is remarkable is that the faithful will still pray to god and ask that god cause some important future event to have a requested outcome. How can this be. If they really believe that god does nothing, then what is the point of praying. I can only imagine that somehow they believe that god can fulfill their prayers without being detectable by science. I believe that if they thought about this seriously, then surely their heads would explode. This is such an important thought process that I have devoted an entire chapter to it in my book.

Does Faith Require Evidence

As promised, I'll now start to address this very important assertion. If there is really no evidence, how do people get the idea that there is a god. As children many of us, including myself, were taught about god. We accepted this as fact because our parents, our friends, and most of the adults we knew all seemed to agree on this. We didn't yet wonder how it was that they knew. If later, as adults, we found out that no one had any real reason to believe in god beyond the fact that everyone else believed it, then I think that many people could not hold on to faith of this sort. Those who do could indeed be said to have faith without any evidence. But this is a weak sort of faith, and I am pretty sure that when someone says that faith does not require evidence, they have in mind a stronger sort of faith.

People with a fully committed religious faith usually will trace it to some personal experience. At the very least, this would be an experience reported by someone they trust. But more commonly it is their own personal experience that confers a certainty about the existence of god. So how is this not evidence? I think the claim is that because the experience is usually mental and not necessarily perceived by others, that it is supernatural and therefore not accessible as scientific evidence as we commonly understand it.

This is a false dichotomy, however. Even if you think that the experience involved god touching your soul, and that the soul is not part of your physical body, there is evidently some connection with your body, because you are able to move your physical mouth and talk about the experience. Even though perhaps "words cannot express" the wonder of the experience, none the less, anything you do say can be used as evidence. Since many people have this sort of experience science can, and in fact does, investigate them. It could turn out that they really are evidence for god, but either way, they do deserve an explanation.

In later posts I'll have more to say about what these experiences probably are. But for now the bottom line is that faith actually does require evidence. It doesn't require actual miracles, or the physical appearance of god, but it is based on experience, and that experience constitutes evidence.